Who decides what standards the regulator must impose?

In the first instance, the regulator itself gets to decide the standards in its code. Leveson recommends that these standards be the responsibility of the board of the new regulator, not a separate committee of editors as in the current Press Complaints Commission (PCC) system.

The board can, however, be advised by a "code committee" that can have serving editors but must also have independent members. However, Ofcom – or a different certifying body if that's what emerges – will need to be satisfied that these standards meet high-level statutory criteria and this may become a point of controversy.

Who decides whether the regulator is doing a good enough job?

Ofcom, or a different certifying body if that's what emerges. They will certify the regulator in the first instance.

Leveson then recommends that they should review the regulator after two years and thereafter every three years. They can also, in specifically defined circumstances, carry out ad hoc reviews if the need arises.

What sanctions can the new regulator impose?

Leveson builds on the sanctions already proposed by Lords Black and Hunt, including the power to fine up to £1m for serious breaches of the code, requiring published corrections and so on.

However, he also goes further than them by, for example, suggesting sanctions for breaches of the code in relation to groups or matters of fact where there is no individual complainant. He also proposes the regulator records and publishes all breaches of the code, whereas the PCC often keeps some breaches confidential, preferring instead to mediate rather than adjudicate.

What if Ofcom (or the chosen certifying body) decides the regulator is not doing a good enough job?

If Ofcom decides that the major publishers in the land are not in an adequate regulatory system, Leveson describes four options for what could be done and settles on making Ofcom the backstop regulator. This approach could be used for a single member of the national press or if the whole press or a substantial part could not form a compliant regulator. In that circumstance, however, it is likely that parliament would have to revisit the whole settlement.

Is the independent regulator established by law?

Yes, in a statute that does three things: firstly, it sets out the recognition process and the criteria used by the certifier (most likely Ofcom) to verify the regulator and the right of those regulated in it to receive the benefits that come with it.

Secondly, it sets out the benefits – ie the carrots and sticks of the newly proposed arbitration system, whereby regulated publications have advantages in legal costs and damages and unregulated publications face higher penalties.

Why does Leveson's model require any legislation?

Good question – Cameron believes it may not. To achieve the carrots and sticks in legal costs it probably requires statute law to recognise the regulator, introduce exemplary damages and to refer judges to procedure rules on costs.

To ensure full participation by major publishers, the statute would be used to give Ofcom a role in certifying self-regulators that form and in the eventuality of a publisher staying out of regulation, the statute would need to be extended to give Ofcom backstop powers to regulate.

What happens if news organisations do not join the new regulator?

They can form another regulator that is compliant with the criteria. Leveson regards this as undesirable but it is possible. If Richard Desmond did not want to sit round the regulatory table with the Daily Mail, he could feasibly find like-minded publishers and set up another regulator.

The same could be true of internet publishers or magazines and so on. If they still do not join in, then Leveson suggests the best of remaining alternatives is that they get directly regulated by Ofcom, though not the content of what they publish.

How does Leveson define which organisations must submit to regulation?

He says it should be all news and periodical publishers, including news publishers online. He wants all the major players ie the national press and as many local papers and magazines as possible. He hopes that the carrots and sticks will attract online publishers.

Ultimately, however, in addressing a scenario in which some publishers may stay out of the system and trigger backstop regulation from Ofcom, Leveson explores who this applies to. He says it would apply to organisations of a sufficient size and impact, among those that provide "news-like services" with Ofcom helping to define this.

It raises the prospect of a large digital player – such as Google News or Yahoo News – being required to join a regulator or be regulated by Ofcom. This is the sting in the Leveson plan – is it in effect a form of licensing?